→Opinions: No |
|||
Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
*'''No'''...BLP issues, and has nothing to do with subject matter of the landslide. Highly tabloidish to even mention in passing.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 18:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC) |
*'''No'''...BLP issues, and has nothing to do with subject matter of the landslide. Highly tabloidish to even mention in passing.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 18:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''No'''. For one thing, murders due to such circumstances happen all the time unfortunately. In any case, way off-topic for the article subject. Even if one accepts that a murder can happen as a consequence of something, by that logic every event that happened as a consequence of the [[2004 Indian Ocean tsunami]] can be added to that article. [[user_talk:iiar| <span style="color:aquamarine">pretty IittIe </span> ]][[user:Iiar|Iiar]] 15:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC) |
*'''No'''. For one thing, murders due to such circumstances happen all the time unfortunately. In any case, way off-topic for the article subject. Even if one accepts that a murder can happen as a consequence of something, by that logic every event that happened as a consequence of the [[2004 Indian Ocean tsunami]] can be added to that article. [[user_talk:iiar| <span style="color:aquamarine">pretty IittIe </span> ]][[user:Iiar|Iiar]] 15:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''No'''. I agree with others who view this as off topic. The sources presented support the off topic POV. The first cited article (39) is the only one actually about the mudslide and it doesn't mention the murder at all (it also doesn't work as a citation for the content). The other citations were about the murder not the mudslide and mention the disaster only as background. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 02:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
===Threaded discussion=== |
===Threaded discussion=== |
Revision as of 02:16, 4 October 2016
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Condemned property dispute ends in double murder" section tagged as off-topic
I have tagged the "2014_Oso_mudslide#Condemned property dispute ends in double murder" sub-section (under the "Controversy" section) as off-topic. This was initially added by the sometimes active User:MrsKrishan, but I don't see how this is relevant to the topic of this article. If there is no support for it I propose to delete it in a week or two. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- @J. Johnson: um, it's pretty directly related. The county condemned Reed's home as a result of the dangerous condition left by the slide and forced a sale; Reed allegedly squatted on the property; Reed allegedly killed his neighbors after they complained. It's not just me making the connection, either. Example sourced in the article: "The neighbors had also got involved in a dispute over a condemned property that Reed had been forced to sell to the county following a deadly landslide in the area in 2014 that killed 43 people." VQuakr (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't know about {{off topic}} before, or I would have used it when that stuff got added. It has nothing to do with the landslide. It might be worth a single sentence in the "Recovery" section, if the article had one. — Gorthian (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- I do agree that it makes no sense in the "controversy" section. It would make more sense in "Recovery" or "Aftermath" sections, either of which would be reasonable additions to the article. VQuakr (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- I can't believe any experienced, serious editor would think the content belongs in this article. It's not at all related and needs to be removed as off-topic trivia. If the murder case is notable, write an article on it and mention the mudslide, that would be appropriate. Adding a section or any mention of the murder in this article? Wholly inappropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Seems we disagree. Related means "standing in relation or connection." The murders were allegedly the culmination of a property dispute directly caused by the landslide. That seems pretty unambiguously related, and as noted above the connection was made by the sources as well. VQuakr (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I can't believe any experienced, serious editor would think the content belongs in this article. It's not at all related and needs to be removed as off-topic trivia. If the murder case is notable, write an article on it and mention the mudslide, that would be appropriate. Adding a section or any mention of the murder in this article? Wholly inappropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I do agree that it makes no sense in the "controversy" section. It would make more sense in "Recovery" or "Aftermath" sections, either of which would be reasonable additions to the article. VQuakr (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't know about {{off topic}} before, or I would have used it when that stuff got added. It has nothing to do with the landslide. It might be worth a single sentence in the "Recovery" section, if the article had one. — Gorthian (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Murderers murder because they are murderers, not because a landslide happened. Criminals commit criminal acts because they are criminals, not because a landslide happened. Drama between neighbors happens because people like to create problems and drama for others, not because a landslide happened. See where I'm going with this? Like I said above, if you want to see content on the murder in the encyclopedia, create an article on it. The section doesn't belong in the article but you're free to create an article that is about the murder and the circumstances surrounding the murder that seem to be only in a very small, insignificant way about the landslide. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- VQuakr, it doesn't matter why the property was condemned. It could have been a tornado; it could have been an earthquake; it could have been a flood. The dispute and the subsequent murder have nothing to do with the reason the property was vacated. It's a separate story. — Gorthian (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Those are your opinions. But what our policy actually says is to reflect the sources in proportion to the prominence of the viewpoint. The sources in this case do verifiably connect the murder to the landslide. WV, re your repeated suggestion to create a separate article, I think that per WP:PAGEDECIDE the murder is better (briefly) covered here rather than in a stand-alone article. VQuakr (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
"Those are your opinions"
. Indeed. And everyone of those opinions disagrees with your one opinion on the subject. Which tells me, it's time to remove the irrelevant content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)- We're discussing. Don't edit war. VQuakr (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- You're denying the reality. How many editors are disagreeing with your desire to keep the irrelevant content in? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- No one has even attempted to make a policy-based argument for the removal. Please review WP:CONSENSUS and WP:VOTE if you think this is determined by simple majority, and WP:EW if you think your repeated reversions during discussion are acceptable. VQuakr (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- You're denying the reality. How many editors are disagreeing with your desire to keep the irrelevant content in? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- We're discussing. Don't edit war. VQuakr (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Those are your opinions. But what our policy actually says is to reflect the sources in proportion to the prominence of the viewpoint. The sources in this case do verifiably connect the murder to the landslide. WV, re your repeated suggestion to create a separate article, I think that per WP:PAGEDECIDE the murder is better (briefly) covered here rather than in a stand-alone article. VQuakr (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
How about this? I think that addresses the sectioning issue by creating an "Aftermath" section, and the WP:WEIGHT issue by paring down the coverage to the portion linked to the slide in the sources. VQuakr (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi, VQuakr is right. We need to come to a consensus before changes are made to the article. That includes getting more editors' opinions. Maybe we need to go for WP:RFC or WP:DRN? — Gorthian (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- It has been appropriately labeled as off-topic, meaning it is irrelevant to the subject of the article. Several editors immediately stated the content does not belong. How much more clear can it be? An RfC? Typically I think they are appropriate. In this case I don't. WP:SNOW comes to mind. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Three editors have expressed the opinion that the section be removed; none have expressed so in the context of any policy or guideline. Feel free to be the first. Personally I think the edit linked above adequately addressed the due coverage issue, but I'd like to hear what @J. Johnson: and @Gorthian: think. Also, not everyone with this article watchlisted is on WP every day and this discussion is only a few hours old. Why not wait a week or so before jumping to any form of dispute resolution? VQuakr (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- The solution here is not a foregone conclusion, so SNOW doesn't apply. Once there is an objection to an action, the next step is discussion.
- VQuakr, WP:WEIGHT doesn't work. For instance, the article you cited above mentioned the landslide in one sentence at the very end of the article. The article is approximately 0.1% landslide and 99.9% homicide case. The same goes for a spot check of other sources. WP:TOPIC says, "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information." I'm not sure the murder should be mentioned at all. — Gorthian (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm certainly willing to wait a while to allow others to chime in with ideas. No rush. — Gorthian (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- From this one: "After the mudslide, deputies took a report that Reed had threatened FEMA workers at the Oso Fire Hall “in regard to his displeasure about the landslide and associated response.”" and "Cheek stated Reed was expressing extreme anger about the slide and named a list of people whom Reed blamed..." and "...Reed, whom investigators describe in records as a disgruntled landowner angered by the response to the deadly landslide near Oso that left 43 people dead in 2014." VQuakr (talk) 02:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Three editors have expressed the opinion that the section be removed; none have expressed so in the context of any policy or guideline. Feel free to be the first. Personally I think the edit linked above adequately addressed the due coverage issue, but I'd like to hear what @J. Johnson: and @Gorthian: think. Also, not everyone with this article watchlisted is on WP every day and this discussion is only a few hours old. Why not wait a week or so before jumping to any form of dispute resolution? VQuakr (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter how many articles you pull up that mention the slide in relation to the disagreement and the murders. The Oso mudslide article is about the mudslide, the lives and homes lost from it, and how it all directly affected the families of the deceased and the surrounding towns. It's not about people having arguments about land that was affected by the slide. That kind of thing is not encyclopedic, does nothing to further the reader's understanding of the article subject, and is simply off-topic, irrelevant trivia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
VQuaker: you said (at the top) that the slide and the double-murder are "pretty directly related
" (emphasis added). But it is not the relation I question (all things are related, if you look far enough), I question the relevance. And while this does not arise to the level of policy (it is, after all, one of those pretty basic, common-sense expectations) we do have guidance at WP:Relevance. Pariticularly (from the nutshell): "Stay on topic, and within scope}}". That first link goes to WP:OFFTOPIC, which says (as Gorthian has already noted): "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. ...
". And the scope of this article is the 2014 Oso mudslide. Not any murders.
The article mentions how many died in the slide because they died as a direct consequence of the slide. The slide did not cause the murders. It was, at most, an indirect factor, the connection (or relation) being several steps removed. Neither the actuality of the murders, nor any detail about them, tells us any thing about the topic here, which is the slide.
So there is your "policy-based argument for the removal.
" As to your statement that "what our policy actually says is to reflect the sources in proportion to the prominence of the viewpoint
", that would apply to to different viewpoints about, say, why the slide happened. That there was a double-homicide is not a viewpoint (let alone a disputed viewpoint), it simply is not relevant. It is off-topic.
The rest of us think this issue is pretty clear. Please note that consensus does not mean unanimity. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
A week having passed, it appears there is no longer any objection to the view that the text questioned is off-topic. Therefore I am proceeding to remove that text. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Still the same objection, and certainly no consensus to remove the paragraph. The contentious and bitter nature of the compulsory purchases following the slide are a key characteristic of the aftermath. VQuakr (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, it looks as if we do need a RFC. I can post that, but I want to make sure we agree on a category and statement wording. The category probably should be "Maths, science, and technology", yes? We can have more than one category, but I'm not sure what other one(s) would work. For the statement wording, how about, "
Should the article contain material about the property dispute and murder following the landslide?
— Gorthian (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, it looks as if we do need a RFC. I can post that, but I want to make sure we agree on a category and statement wording. The category probably should be "Maths, science, and technology", yes? We can have more than one category, but I'm not sure what other one(s) would work. For the statement wording, how about, "
- I suggest including the "history and geography" category. I also suggest linking the disputed diff. I think the query text you propose is reasonable. VQuakr (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Mention also that only a single editor opposes the exclusion of the disputed text, who proceed to re-insert the text without any further disucssion. (Which I just reverted, per WP:BRD.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- WP:BRD is an essay. One would imagine the editor who originally added the content also would support its inclusion. The entire point of a RfC is to get additional visibility for discussion, not to determine consensus level for discussion that's already existing. VQuakr (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- ETA - are you really claiming "without further discussion" in direct reply to my post discussing the topic!? VQuakr (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- The last substantive discussion was my comments on 10 Sep. (above). There has been no further discussion until your "Still the same objection" comment of just yesterday, which hardly advanced any discussion of the issue. You had over two weeks to reply to my comments, and did not.
- Your edit-warring notice on my talk page is pretty condescending. Do I need to explain to you it runs the other way as well? Even more to the point, do you need an explanation that consensus does not require unanimity? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)
- Don't edit war over well-cited content. Leave it in and give the article time. It isn't causing immediate damage, so you have no reason to provoke drama. It's totally fine to add a maintenance tag, but that's enough. For now.
I guess this is never going to stop happening. That's the reason why we have so many policies that speak directly to the habit of some editors to immediately delete well-cited content instead of trying to fix the problem or allow the article to grow into a better version. The specific policy that directly connects to this is WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM aka WP:PRESERVE. It's fine to tag the content, and to discuss it, for future revision or cleanup. But there is no compelling reason to remove well-cited facts while an article is at an early stage. Once it is at the late, polishing stage, nearing some kind of perfection, then a second look at what might not belong is worth while. When you immediately stomp on additions, it excludes editors from participation, and slows and even halts the process of building an encyclopedia. Exactly what WP:Editing policy is prohibiting.
The only good excuse is WP:BLP issues, and in this case we are't saying anything opinionated, controversial, or tangential about any living people. The most important fact about John Blaine Reed, whom we don't mention by name, is that he has plead guilty to murder. We aren't blowing that incident out of proportion with regard to his reputation. That's his whole reputation.
What does a polished article look like? It looks like a WP:Featured Article. Some examples:
- 7 World Trade Center mentions the Boesky insider-trading scandal, even though it isn't really directly connected with the building. By this strict standard of what's "off topic", we'd have only said a tenant backed out, and not mentioned why.
- Sinking of the RMS Titanic tells us the fates of passengers after the disaster, such as the death of Colonel Archibald Gracie attributed to the ordeal, or the 'cultural impact' section which is deceptively short -- the quantity is so large that it has been offloaded to RMS Titanic in popular culture. This kind of information is not unencyclopedic, it's just that it doesn't fit on an article already 12,000 words long.
- Details like this are not so awful that they must be aggressively expunged on sight, and even our most polished and refined articles typically keep some of them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Request for comment
Should the article contain material about the property dispute and murder following the landslide?— Gorthian (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The discussion just above is pertinent, and the disputed edit is here. — Gorthian (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Opinions
- Yes, the sources clearly say that the landslide, consequent property condemnations and trespassing dispute were motives for the murder. Therefore, the incident is on-topic. JerryRussell (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, per my reasoning in the discussion section above (in short, that multiple sources have made the connection between the alleged murders and the slide). VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, the landslide itself should be the topic of the article. Property condemnations and reactions to those are incidental to the landslide. — Gorthian (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. The murder is a significant event, widely reported and verifiable (not counting the Daily Mail. Delete that one and cite something better), that happened as a consequence of the mudslide. This article is about a historical event: what led up to it, what happened, what that led to. Very basic stuff. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. As we have already discussed (above), that the fact of the murders, and the claimed motivation, are well established by sources, and even significant in themselves, is not relevant (per WP:Relevance) to the landslide. They are off-topic. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- No – Having that content present doesn't add anything to the article. Dawnseeker2000 21:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. The murders are a consequence/aftermath of the landslide, and a historical fact.CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- No...BLP issues, and has nothing to do with subject matter of the landslide. Highly tabloidish to even mention in passing.--MONGO 18:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- No. For one thing, murders due to such circumstances happen all the time unfortunately. In any case, way off-topic for the article subject. Even if one accepts that a murder can happen as a consequence of something, by that logic every event that happened as a consequence of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami can be added to that article. pretty IittIe Iiar 15:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- No. I agree with others who view this as off topic. The sources presented support the off topic POV. The first cited article (39) is the only one actually about the mudslide and it doesn't mention the murder at all (it also doesn't work as a citation for the content). The other citations were about the murder not the mudslide and mention the disaster only as background. Springee (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
I am curious about VQuakr's statement that: "The contentious and bitter nature of the compulsory purchases following the slide are a key characteristic of the aftermath."
Are there any sources that discuss these 'contentious and bitter, compulsory' purchases? Could more of this information be included in the article? JerryRussell (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- It got a passing mention in a few sources I found when trying to improve the paragraph on the murders. I don't recall seeing any sources that had an adequate intersection of reliability and weight, though. VQuakr (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- It seems that the buyout program was voluntary rather than compulsory, but there was a building moratorium, and habitation was prohibited in some areas. Here are some stories:
- http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-year-after-deadly-landslide-fight-over-building-curbs-goes-on-1426871627
- http://www.kiro7.com/news/oso-gets-76-million-federal-funds-mudslide-recover/43294007 JerryRussell (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- The source that said "Reed had been forced to sell to the county" is the Daily Mail. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard hasn't reached a strong consensus on whether this tabloid can be cited, but it is a controversial source, which I consider skunked: even when its correct, you invite suspicion just by citing it, and that's an unncessary distraction. It looks like the Daily Mail story is a close paraphrase of the Seattle Times anyway, so what's the need? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Makes sense, particularly if the Daily Fail says something different than the other sources. VQuakr (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Above I cited the Featured Articles 7 World Trade Center and Sinking of the RMS Titanic that include details and events that extend beyond the strict limits of the subject or event itself. Port Chicago disaster one more example of an article that takes a broader scope. It describes 1) an explosion 2) a mutiny in response to racial segregation and the conditions that led to the explosion, and 3) the trial of the mutineers. Beyond that it has sections that describe the social and political changes caused by these 3 phases years and decades later, through the 1990s and 2000s. It traces actions of participants 50 years after the initial events. Port Chicago disaster is a very well-written narrative that covers both isolated incidents and the sweep of history. If the narrow standard of what is and isn't "off topic" were applied there, you'd have nothing but a description of the explosion, and subsequent reactions and counter-reactions and counter-counter-reactions would be left for the reader to hunt down in some other article.
Another FA, Senghenydd colliery disaster, has a somewhat narrower scope, yet still goes into detail on the aftermath of the explosion, noting what became of some of the principals in the events, the longer terms social effects, and media depictions in film and plays, and memorials observed a century later. Yet another FA, SS Arctic disaster tells us the fate of the ship's captain, the eventual fates of other ships involved, the shipping line, and so on. Again, not strictly limited to the event itself.
This is the norm for Featured Articles. Other examples include Zong massacre, Gunpowder Plot, Rosewood massacre, 1740 Batavia massacre, 1907 Tiflis bank robbery and more. Our best articles follow threads begin in the original event and do not cut off the story because of some imagined rule.
Quality articles do stay focused and have limits on their scope, but the limits of what the community says are the very best Wikipedia articles are significantly broader than what is being claimed here. Ask yourself why WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:Germane and WP:Relevance are all only essays that have never had any of their ideas accepted in a guideline, let alone policy. The reason is the advice they offer is not helpful in getting us closer to what the community thinks our best articles should be. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- User:MONGO cited "BLP issues", which is new. This is the first instance of anyone citing a policy rather than an essay or two in favor of removal. What are the BLP issues, specifically? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'd say that any BLP issues are handled pretty well. The article doesn't name the suspected murderer, and it says that he's been arrested on suspicion of the murder, but avoids any judgment about his guilt or innocence. For whatever it's worth, I believe Reed has pleaded innocent of the charges. Perhaps that ought to be mentioned as well, per NPOV. JerryRussell (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Right. All of these various essays that get cited so often because they have become accepted distillations of long-standing community consensus and norms should be ignored because WMF has not officially enshrined them as policies. But allow me to point out that WP:SECTION, which you [Bratland] cite in the following section, is also an essay. So why are the essays you cite more compelling than the essays everyone else cites? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Did I cite it? I didn't say: do it because WP:CSECTION says so. I said my reasons were found there in fuller detail.
There are varying degrees of acceptance, and that determines the precedence. There's nothing wrong with citing an essay. But it carries less weight than a guideline, which in turn carries less weight than a policy. Violating a policy is a more urgent matter than ignoring the advice of an essay. WP:CANTFIX lists the policies showing the only cases where content must be removed. WP:editing policy trumps any essay or advice page. We have not named an accused, low profile person, respecting the WP:BLPCRIME policy.
When multiple policies apply, or multiple interpretations are possible, the example set by multiple FAs is a good guide as to how the broader community interprets policy. It's a mistake to assume that because an essay exists, it must have broad support. Essays that contradict policy are rarely deleted because it's easier to simply ignore them.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Did I cite it? I didn't say: do it because WP:CSECTION says so. I said my reasons were found there in fuller detail.
- Right. All of these various essays that get cited so often because they have become accepted distillations of long-standing community consensus and norms should be ignored because WMF has not officially enshrined them as policies. But allow me to point out that WP:SECTION, which you [Bratland] cite in the following section, is also an essay. So why are the essays you cite more compelling than the essays everyone else cites? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Proposed reorganization
For reasons given in detail in WP:CSECTION, we should not have a heading called "controversy", and instead redistribute the contents chronologically. Looking at that, this article's order is quite jumbled. The prehistory is second to last, the history is last, and the order of events in the Controversey and Aftermath sections are anyone's guess. Good examples to follow are Nevado del Ruiz and Sinking of the RMS Titanic.
Can we do something like this:
==Background==
===Geological context==
===History of slide activity===
==March 2014 landslide== (was "Overview" section)
some of the bits in the overview section belong under Background. Keep only the descriptions of what happens on March 22, 2014
Almost everything in the current "Casualties and damage" section belongs here
===Rescue and cleanup===
describe the events in the few days after March 22
==Aftermath==
===Logging===
===Federal aid===
==See also==
==Notes==
==References==
==External links==
--Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- I intended to do a reorganization oh, about two and a half years ago: Talk:2014 Oso mudslide/Archive 3#Proposed article organization. Nothing distracting about Wikipedia. — Gorthian (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- I concur in general for better organization. But keep mind that we do have some history as to why the article is in its current order. The original order seems to have arisen from doing the "BOOM" part first, then get into all the the boring details as to why. Presumably the lede can provide enough tease to carry most readers to the exciting part.
- I disagree re the "Controversy" section, especially regarding Pennington's statement that the slide was "completely unforeseen". Whether logging contributed is also controversial, and this incident is only the latest of a long-running issue. (If logging is not covered here, then presumably it would be discussed right after the geology as a contributing condition. But that implies it is a contributing condition, which is what some people controvert.)
- And I think you have misread WP:CSECTION; it does NOT say '
we should not have a heading called "controversy"
'. It says: "An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged ....
" [Emphasis added.] And: "Likewise, sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged.
"
- And I think you have misread WP:CSECTION; it does NOT say '
- While it also says that '
[s]ections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies"
' [emphasis added], The two topics here are indeed controversial, involving opposing viewpoints to a degree not seen in any of the other sections. I think it is proper they be identified as such in the headers. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)- Segregating certain types of facts in a controversy section is bad style for the same reason that segregating certain types of facts in an "in popular culture" section or "trivia" section is bad style. You yank particular facts out of context and move them to a special section, making the chronology harder to follow and telling the reader that events proceeded separately from the so-called "controversies". Whether all parties agreed on a statement or not, we should read about the statement at the time in the chronology when it was said. Then if someone disagrees with a statement, we read about it at the point in the chronology when that happened.
Think of the reader's needs first.
It would make sense to end the article with a summary of retrospectives, assessments, reviews, etc written from a historical distance, where an expert has reviewed all the evidence and come to conclusions from that perspective. But even then, that respects chronology and helps the reader. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Segregating certain types of facts in a controversy section is bad style for the same reason that segregating certain types of facts in an "in popular culture" section or "trivia" section is bad style. You yank particular facts out of context and move them to a special section, making the chronology harder to follow and telling the reader that events proceeded separately from the so-called "controversies". Whether all parties agreed on a statement or not, we should read about the statement at the time in the chronology when it was said. Then if someone disagrees with a statement, we read about it at the point in the chronology when that happened.
- While it also says that '
- We are not "
Segregating certain types of facts in a controversy section
" (such as the "negative criticisms" that WP:CSECTION addresses). The chronology is preserved by mentioning in the proper place that there was logging, with the comment that whether this contributed to the slide is controversial, and "see below". I don't know where the "unforseen" comment would fit into the chronology, as it didn't happen before the slide, and the comment is hardly a consequence of the slide. But as a controversy, that is definitely subsequent.
- We are not "
- Identifying controversial topics as controversial is thinking of the reader.
- Your "where [when?] an expert has reviewed all the evidence" is a bit naive. As I recall, three different committees have issued reports, with over a dozen experts involved, and there may be new material in the court case. "Historical distance" is probably eight or ten years out, so all we can do is summarize our best understanding of current not yet conclusive views. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- See below? That's terrible style. John Pennington said on March 24, 2014 "It was considered very safe. This was a completely unforeseen slide. This came out of nowhere." That's the date. March 24, 2014. That's where it belongs in the article. Reactions to what Penninggon said belong on the dates when they were said. The Seattle Times reacted the same day, others responded on later days. Why does the reader need to jump down to a different part of the article to read about it?
I don't know why the name calling and nit picking about what is and isn't "naive". Have you not noticed that when you address other editors like that, the whole discussion goes downhill from there? Please forgive me for not being aware that you define "historical" as 8 to 10 years. I had no idea. I referred to the post-event reports as having "historical distance" relative to the immediate newspaper articles. And those reports were published chronologically later. That's all. Picky picky picky. Not helpful.
Write it the same way as Sinking of the RMS Titanic. It's a great article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- See below? That's terrible style. John Pennington said on March 24, 2014 "It was considered very safe. This was a completely unforeseen slide. This came out of nowhere." That's the date. March 24, 2014. That's where it belongs in the article. Reactions to what Penninggon said belong on the dates when they were said. The Seattle Times reacted the same day, others responded on later days. Why does the reader need to jump down to a different part of the article to read about it?
- Your "where [when?] an expert has reviewed all the evidence" is a bit naive. As I recall, three different committees have issued reports, with over a dozen experts involved, and there may be new material in the court case. "Historical distance" is probably eight or ten years out, so all we can do is summarize our best understanding of current not yet conclusive views. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Do you consider my characterizing your statement as "a bit naive" some kind of name-calling? I don't consider your "
[t]hat's terrible style
" as name-calling, so why are you being so peevish?
- Do you consider my characterizing your statement as "a bit naive" some kind of name-calling? I don't consider your "
- I will insist on being picky to the extent you have misrepresented my statement. In particular: I have not defined "historical", or even "historical distance"; I merely said that, regarding of the causes of the slide, it may take eight to ten years to reach "historical distance". Meaning (roughly) time enough for information to come out and different points of view to be resolved to a point of long-term stability. If you meant that term in a different sense perhaps you should have advised us. It is most certainly not obtained when an expert has "reviewed all the evidence".
- If you are going to insist that everything must be presented in strict chronological order of when it happened (or was published) then the article is going to be a mess. E.g., are the geological reports to be mentioned only when they came out, even though that intersperses them with the details of the murder and other "aftermath"? In that case I will oppose your proposed re-organization, as it seems you are going implement a confusing intermingling of different elements. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Does not compute?
The intro says the the mudslide covered an area "of approximately 1 square mile".
The fourth paragraph says the "mudslide covered an area 1,500 ft (460 m) long, 4,400 ft (1,300 m)".
That's less than a quarter of a square mile. . Moriori (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- So check the sources to verify the numbers. If sources are inconsistent you may have find other sources to resolve the matter. It may be necessary to determine why the sources have different numbers. This could be due estimates by different sources (and here I refer to the primary sources, such as the USGS that have actually made some attempt to measure the area, not the newspapers that merely repeat the numbers), different concepts of just what is being measured, or an evolution of those numbers as the measurement are refined. Sounds like a nice mini-project. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)